The Future of the Scandanavian Left

[RGacky3]

Recently I've been reading a little about the fighting words (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=10083554)between the Swedish liberal minister of education and the Norweigan socialist parties minister of education, and I hate the framing of the debate, is preserving the social-democratic system or privatizing.

Why arn't the socialists pushing for more socialism? Why are they always on the defensive? Do you see a future push for MORE socialism rather than just keeping what there is?

[Per Levy]

Why arn't the socialists pushing for more socialism? Why are they always on the defensive? Do you see a future push for MORE socialism rather than just keeping what there is?

because they arnt socialists, only socialists by name, like most social democratic/socialistic partys in europe(labour, spd and so on). in reality their are mostly centrist, maybe a little leftwing centrist but still centrist.

[Dimentio]

Nationalisation is easy when the state is creating new organisations, like schools, hospitals and companies. Vattenfall or LKAB were never private companies which were bought or confiscated by the state, they were created by the state in the beginning.

To re-nationalise the entire school system would be to take property from hundreds of entrepreneurs, and that would mean a lot - I mean A LOT - of upsetness which the Social Democrats won't be able to muster.

It is easier to privatise since the people don't realise that they own the national companies.

In the 1970's, the Palme governments were aiming to socialise Sweden's economy. That led to the first loss of power for the Social Democrats in 40 years.

[RGacky3]

Nationalizing can be difficult but there are other ways of doing it, starting up parralell organizations which put the buisinesses out of buisiness (non profits do better), or doing supporting cooperatives such happened in the past in the nordic lands (cooperative farming and such).


because they arnt socialists, only socialists by name, like most social democratic/socialistic partys in europe(labour, spd and so on). in reality their are mostly centrist, maybe a little leftwing centrist but still centrist.

I'm not talked about them perse, take the SV the socialist party in Norway, they are clearly socialists, their leader calls himself a revolutionary socialist and a Marxist, however when it comse to action their action is always defensive. I'm not saying they should start nationalizing perse, but they need some bite.

[Obs]

I'm not talked about them perse, take the SV the socialist party in Norway, they are clearly socialists, their leader calls himself a revolutionary socialist and a Marxist, however when it comse to action their action is always defensive. I'm not saying they should start nationalizing perse, but they need some bite.
This has to do with the direction class struggle has taken in Scandinavia over the past years. At the moment, the working class is on the defensive, losing social privileges that they have fought tooth and nail for. As a result, so are socialist groups wise to be on the defensive, even if that means making unfortunate alliances - Kommunistisk Parti in Denmark is currently following a similar line, advocating a regime shift towards a social democratic government before entering the offensive. Our current strategy consists of making demands that we can just barely realistically expect the social democrats to follow, and then going on the offensive when they inevitably break some of their promises. When we have more members and are more well-known, we will start pushing for socialism. This may take a while - revolutionary groups in Denmark (and I presume Scandinavia at large) are still recovering from the widespread splits and confusion that arose in the fall of the Soviet Union. For reasons that very few of us understand, it's proven very difficult thus far to create unison among communist groupings here.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why arn't the socialists pushing for more socialism? Why are they always on the defensive? Do you see a future push for MORE socialism rather than just keeping what there is?
Comrade, this is not a question of "more or less of socialism". As a social democrat (mistakenly self named "socialist"; that's, I suppose, part of the ideological mystification game), the guy in question has to defend an educational system which puts a pressure on the tax base (and the most important of the groups within this base are the capitalists; that's why it's a significant pressure). His counterpart would argue in favour of a different kind of management of the capitalist system. But at the end of the day - they are both pro-capitalist and concerned with the management of the best possible conditions for captial accumulation.

I really cannot comprehend your confusion.

[RGacky3]

See I don't buy that, when you start loosing gains you start pushing harder, you have to push for alternativees, onces you start being defensive your just making compromises which end up being a disaster.

Let me give you an example, I work in the public sector, a lot of work got subcontracted out due to policies from the former riht wing government, what that means is public money is being spend on for-profit contractors, meaning your wasting money, that was a compromise i.e. we won't privatise but we'll sub contract some work, which will drain public funds, and make the public sector seam innefficient, your essencially doubling up the work and money.

The left parties should be pushing a real alternative, making it clear that the radical socialists MADE social democracy in scandanavia, and they did so through revolutionary politics, not through compromise and playing it safe. What the left parties are doing are what the unions did in the 1980s, and what the mainland socialist parties did in the 1990s, and those compromise, playing defensive strategies FAILED.

[RGacky3]

Comrade, this is not a question of "more or less of socialism". As a social democrat (mistakenly self named "socialist"; that's, I suppose, part of the ideological mystification game), the guy in question has to defend an educational system which puts a pressure on the tax base (and the most important of the groups within this base are the capitalists; that's why it's a significant pressure). His counterpart would argue in favour of a different kind of management of the capitalist system. But at the end of the day - they are both pro-capitalist and concerned with the management of the best possible conditions for captial accumulation.

I really cannot comprehend your confusion.

more or less socialism is the question, i.e. how much of the society, the economy, is gonna be private and for profit, and how much is gonna be public and not for profit.

The fact is social-democracy was not made by people who wanted social democracy, it was made by people who wanted to overthrow Capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

more or less socialism is the question, i.e. how much of the society, the economy, is gonna be private and for profit, and how much is gonna be public and not for profit.

The fact is social-democracy was not made by people who wanted social democracy, it was made by people who wanted to overthrow Capitalism.

Public enterprises are for profit. Their "profit" derives from the profit of the private sector in the form of taxes out of which budgets are formed.
In this way, the "health" of the public sector is directly linked to the increased and more successful capital accumulation on behalf of the private sector.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

EDIT: oh yeah, I forgot to mention that public enterprises can also function as a capitalist enterprise proper (the argument obove refers to social services like the British NHS).

When you understand this, and the history of the social democrat political options (liek British Labour"), then it will be much harder to spout nonsense such as "welfare state is a product of anti-capitalist forces".

[RGacky3]

Public enterprises are for profit. Their "profit" derives from the profit of the private sector in the form of taxes out of which budgets are formed.
In this way, the "health" of the public sector is directly linked to the increased and more successful capital accumulation on behalf of the private sector.


They are not for profit, take the oil industry, its funded by oil profits, others, funded by taxes, are also not for profit, in other words they can run on a loss, if there was NO private sector those industries would still run because you'd get income form the productive sector.

For profit means you have shareholders or an investor that expects a return on their investments, public sector does not need a return to survive, its non profit, the public does not need profit returns on investment, thats why the oil fund is just saved or invested, it does'nt go to anyone.


Why is this so hard for you to understand?


Learn economics.


When you understand this, and the history of the social democrat political options (liek British Labour"), then it will be much harder to spout nonsense such as "welfare state is a product of anti-capitalist forces".

I understand the history of socialist parties in Europe, they were origionally .... SOCIALIST parties.

[Thirsty Crow]

They are not for profit, take the oil industry, its funded by oil profits, others, funded by taxes, are also not for profit, in other words they can run on a loss, if there was NO private sector those industries would still run because you'd get income form the productive sector.


Wait.
First, they're not for profit, but then the oil industry is funded by oil profits whereas other services/public enterprises are funded by taxes (out of which the greatest portion comes from capitalist enterprises), which in turn means that private sector is something completely different than the "productive sector".

Boy what a mess in your head.

But maybe a quote from Cockshott's and Cotrell's book Towards a New Socialism may help:

"Secondly, the ‘mixed economy’ is problematic in two important ways. In the mixed economies that have existed to date, the socialist elements have remained subordinated to the capitalist elements. That is, the commodity and wage forms have remained the primary forms of organisation of production and payment of labour respectively. ‘Socialist’ activities have had to be financed out of tax revenue extracted from the capitalist sector, which has meant that the opportunities for expansion of ‘welfare’ measures and the ‘free’ distribution of basic services have been dependent on the health of the capitalist sector and the strength of the tax base. Only when the capitalist sector has been growing strongly have social democratic governments been able
to ‘deliver the goods’. In this way, the capacity of social democratic governments to reshape the class structure of society has been inherently self-limiting: attempts at radical redistribution always threaten to destroy the engine of capitalist wealth-creation on which those governments ultimately depend."

(pg 3; http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf)

[RGacky3]

Wait.
First, they're not for profit, but then the oil industry is funded by oil profits whereas other services/public enterprises are funded by taxes (out of which the greatest portion comes from capitalist enterprises), which in turn means that private sector is something completely different than the "productive sector".


By Oil profits I mean Oil revenue, you nead to learn some basic economics.

The private sector may or may not be the productive sector, I was talking about a situation of a totally socialist economy.

FOR PROFIT MEANS YOU NEED TO MAKE A PROFIT, it means you have investors that demand a return, public sector industries do not need that.

It seams like a mess to you because you don't have a basic understanding of economics.

[RGacky3]

Double Post

[Thirsty Crow]

By Oil profits I mean Oil revenue, you nead to learn some basic economics.

The private sector may or may not be the productive sector, I was talking about a situation of a totally socialist economy.

FOR PROFIT MEANS YOU NEED TO MAKE A PROFIT, it means you have investors that demand a return, public sector industries do not need that.

It seams like a mess to you because you don't have a basic understanding of economics.

Oh, you were talking about a situation of socialism. Sure you were, but what about the situation today? Do you deny that today public services and enterprises, like Cockshott and Cotrell argue, are totally dependant upon the functioning of capitalist proper enterprises (via tax)? Just don't switch the topic all of a sudden and answer this simple question.

[RGacky3]

Oh, you were talking about a situation of socialism. Sure you were, but what about the situation today? Do

I was talking about that situation if there was no tax revenue, (meaning its not dependant on the private sector).


Do you deny that today public services and enterprises, like Cockshott and Cotrell argue, are totally dependant upon the functioning of capitalist proper enterprises (via tax)? Just don't switch the topic all of a sudden and answer this simple question.

Yes, I deny that, they also get money from productive and revenue producing public sector industries.

[Meridian]

I'm not talked about them perse, take the SV the socialist party in Norway, they are clearly socialists, their leader calls himself a revolutionary socialist and a Marxist, however when it comse to action their action is always defensive. I'm not saying they should start nationalizing perse, but they need some bite.
No. The leader of SV (who is a woman, by the way) is not at all a Marxist. They are a social democratic party. The youth party is a little more radical in theory, as usual, but they still support the social democratic administration.

There's a weird situation in Norway, and many other countries, where revolutionaries 'in name' hold power or influence to some degree, but in fact they are supporters of a strong government and a 'humane' capitalist system, while criticizing certain elements of it. This in turn shapes the discourse about radical leftism, diluting the difference between ideas and where the real divergence lies: Between capitalists and workers, and those with power and those without, whereas it is in the interest of the former to keep the current order and expand it, and in the interest of the latter to destroy it and reshape society.

[RGacky3]

No. The leader of SV (who is a woman, by the way) is not at all a Marxist.

I was referring to Audun Lysbakken who calls himself a Marxist and a revolutionary socialist, opposed to wage labor, capitalism, capital marekts AND property, he's the deputy leader if I'm not mistaken.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, I deny that, they also get money from productive and revenue producing public sector industries.
You didn't even address the consequences of the first aspect of the funding of public enterprises. You just nonchalantly remark how there are other ways.

OK, and how do the "productive and revenue producing public sector industries" operate? Are they non-profit as well? And if you intend to claim that these may operate at a loss - where does the money used to cover these losses come from? Maybe, jeez I don't know - taxes?

[Dimmu]

Well.. In Sweden the right government already started with their neo-liberal agenda by sending aircraft to Libya and by privatizing a lot of companies. Health care system has been completely remade in Sweden, in favor of the private companies.

In my homeland Finland we will have an election on 17th of July where a rightist part will probably come out as a winner. The problem with Scandinavian socialist and left parties is that they are too scared to do anything. Right is on the advance and instead of fighting most finnish "socialist" parties like Social Democrats or the Left-Party are just sitting back letting it happen.

Then we have a matter that most of the Finnish left parties are not socialist but market capitalists in disguise.

[RGacky3]

You didn't even address the consequences of the first aspect of the funding of public enterprises. You just nonchalantly remark how there are other ways.

OK, and how do the "productive and revenue producing public sector industries" operate? Are they non-profit as well? And if you intend to claim that these may operate at a loss - where does the money used to cover these losses come from? Maybe, jeez I don't know - taxes?

Ok, look, it does'nt take an economics major to understand these principles, but I'm gonna spell them out for you.

Economic activity does not happen in a bubble, its all interconnected, what your arguing is nonsense, if you have public hospitals who pays for them? well, some of it comes from public industry, some of it comes from taxes, that does'nt make them non profit, if you have a public farm that buys equipment from capitalist countries does that make the public farm FOR profit???

When a public company makes a profit, if has the option of saving that money, or using it for other public projects, the money saved can be used when its operating at a loss.

Thats essencially what norway has been doing with its oil fund, saving the money for a rainy day.

Medicare is public health care, how is that funded? Well, the same as a regular insurance company. How is Statoil funded? It got started with public money but not it makes plently of revenue to fund itself many times over.

Taxes pay for things like roads, the military and so on, things that DON'T recieve any revenue, when you socialize things that get revenue its a different story.

[Dimentio]

Well.. In Sweden the right government already started with their neo-liberal agenda by sending aircraft to Libya and by privatizing a lot of companies. Health care system has been completely remade in Sweden, in favor of the private companies.

In my homeland Finland we will have an election on 17th of July where a rightist part will probably come out as a winner. The problem with Scandinavian socialist and left parties is that they are too scared to do anything. Right is on the advance and instead of fighting most finnish "socialist" parties like Social Democrats or the Left-Party are just sitting back letting it happen.

Then we have a matter that most of the Finnish left parties are not socialist but market capitalists in disguise.

I doubt that the True Finns would form a government. They have less than 20% of the people behind them, and they are seen as a pariah by the other right-centrist parties.

Why?

Because they want to repress the Finland Swedes and dissolve the EU.

The True Finns are not government material, and the backers of the other parties would never forgive a cooperation with the party which brought the world Toni Halme.

[RGacky3]

Mennochio, non-profits, like the slavation army, or the red cross, get their money through donations, sometimes from corporations, does that make them not for profit too?

[RGacky3]

As for Sweeden yeah I agree they are screwed, they've privatized to the point where you can't call it a social-democracy any more, really the only thing keeping the living standards up to Scandanavian standards are the strong unions.

[Thirsty Crow]

Economic activity does not happen in a bubble, its all interconnected, what your arguing is nonsense, if you have public hospitals who pays for them? well, some of it comes from public industry, some of it comes from taxes, that does'nt make them non profit, if you have a public farm that buys equipment from capitalist countries does that make the public farm FOR profit???

Sorry, I made a mistake. When I was talking about "for profit" public services like NHS - "for profit" was meant to be read figuratively.
The whole point is that the current condition of public services and "public owned" enterprises is dictated by the capitalist sector proper.
Two examples:
I come from a country which is joining the EU in a year or so (or maybe even sooner). Shipyards are public enterprises, meaning that the funding comes from the revenue of the enterprise itself and the budget allocated to them by the government (collected from the common pool of tax). You were right in that they can and did operate at a loss, but the loss resulted in increased tax collected funds which were allocated to these enterprises. Now, EU dictates privatization based on the argument of, among a host of others, the pressures on state budget. The tax base suffers. And, as I've said, the most important factor operating in that base are capitalist enterprises proper.

The second example is broader and concerns the historical turn towards the slashing and dismantling of the welfare state. You can notice very easily that such a bundle of economic policies was favourable only if acceptable growth was realized. Once the developed nations' economies entered into a period of turbulence in early 70s, enhanced capital accumulation (meaning growth) was made possible by an attack on working class standards and social services.

This should make it clear to you: public services and public enterprises are subordinate and dependant on the functioning of the private sector (within the context of actually existing capitalism).Moreover, the primary forms of organization are commodity and wage forms, as Cockshott and Cotrell argue.
Go back and read that short excerpt, seriously.

[RGacky3]

I come from a country which is joining the EU in a year or so (or maybe even sooner). Shipyards are public enterprises, meaning that the funding comes from the revenue of the enterprise itself and the budget allocated to them by the government (collected from the common pool of tax). You were right in that they can and did operate at a loss, but the loss resulted in increased tax collected funds which were allocated to these enterprises. Now, EU dictates privatization based on the argument of, among a host of others, the pressures on state budget. The tax base suffers. And, as I've said, the most important factor operating in that base are capitalist enterprises proper.


That pool also comes from tarrifs, but lets take norway vrs sweeden, norway has a much lower tax, why? Because productive segments of the economy and revenue gaining segments of the economy are public, meaning that revenue can be used instead of taxes. When a public company operates at a loss there are many options, and these options are MUCH more flexible than options for private industries, but yeah, they might need to be subsidised through taxes, but if you have enough public industries making revenue thats unlikely.

As far as the tax base suffering thats right, but money spend on taxes vrs money spent on private industry really has no difference, except one is directed without consideration of the social effect and for a profit. You privatize industry the tax base may benefit but the consumer base suffers, and the tax base does'nt really benefit that much because the state still has to fund basic services which are non-revenue.


The second example is broader and concerns the historical turn towards the slashing and dismantling of the welfare state. You can notice very easily that such a bundle of economic policies was favourable only if acceptable growth was realized. Once the developed nations' economies entered into a period of turbulence in early 70s, enhanced capital accumulation (meaning growth) was made possible by an attack on working class standards and social services.


I'm sorry but that is absolutely untrue, the real social-democratic movements happened in the 50s and 60s and continueing in the 70s, the real attacks happened more in the latter 80s and 90s.

The growth was the effect of social-democratic policies, which inlcuded a strong an steady consumer base which was made through unions and public policy (high wages and worker rights), high unemployment (again unions and public enterprise), socialized industry which operated at a loss for a while but then became really strong, and also good trade policy.

in the 80s and 90s, what happened (especially to countries that did not socialize enough and in the best way), was that enough capital became movable to the point to where it became a threat, you also had a rise of the Capitalist class that profited from the previous system that now had enough influence to make things happen, which lead to an ideological shift.


This should make it clear to you: public services and public enterprises are subordinate and dependant on the functioning of the private sector (within the context of actually existing capitalism).Moreover, the primary forms of organization are commodity and wage forms, as Cockshott and Cotrell argue.
Go back and read that short excerpt, seriously.

Many times they are, however the more revenue producing industry that is public the less dependant on the private sector they are, keep in mind the private sector is also dependant on a consumer market, when you socialize to the point to where you can cover your losses with revenue industry and no private industry has the power to make any demands, then you have a more stable public sector.

I understand your point, but that problem can be avoided with strong revenue producing public industry.

[Dimmu]

I doubt that the True Finns would form a government. They have less than 20% of the people behind them, and they are seen as a pariah by the other right-centrist parties.

Why?

Because they want to repress the Finland Swedes and dissolve the EU.

The True Finns are not government material, and the backers of the other parties would never forgive a cooperation with the party which brought the world Toni Halme.

Thats true.. They are just too "extreme" to be in a government. But that does not change the fact that they are gaining popularity fast and if they are rejected from other parties later on then it will gain them even more voters.

Also Kokoomus will probably "win" the elections and that will mean austerity measures and privatization a'la Reinfeldt.

[Dimentio]

Thats true.. They are just too "extreme" to be in a government. But that does not change the fact that they are gaining popularity fast and if they are rejected from other parties later on then it will gain them even more voters.

Also Kokoomus will probably "win" the elections and that will mean austerity measures and privatization a'la Reinfeldt.

In economic terms, the True Finns are generally speaking a left-populist party. The right would not cooperate with them because of that. The left won't cooperate with them because they are xenophobic and Anti-European.

In Norway, the main xenophobic party is a right-libertarian one.

In Sweden and Denmark, they are centrists in economic terms, though the Swedish group has it's roots in the Fascist movement, whereas the Danish far-rightists once were tax populists.

[StockholmSyndrome]

in the 80s and 90s, what happened (especially to countries that did not socialize enough and in the best way), was that enough capital became movable to the point to where it became a threat, you also had a rise of the Capitalist class that profited from the previous system that now had enough influence to make things happen, which lead to an ideological shift.

Yes. The global nature of the capitalist system undermines social democracy at the national level.

[Dimmu]

In economic terms, the True Finns are generally speaking a left-populist party. The right would not cooperate with them because of that. The left won't cooperate with them because they are xenophobic and Anti-European.

In Norway, the main xenophobic party is a right-libertarian one.

In Sweden and Denmark, they are centrists in economic terms, though the Swedish group has it's roots in the Fascist movement, whereas the Danish far-rightists once were tax populists.

True-Finns are quite center when it comes to the economic policies. They say that they are not leftists nor right. Sounds familiar?

[RGacky3]

Yes. The global nature of the capitalist system undermines social democracy at the national level.

There are ways around that, Welfare Capitalism gest undermined real quick, a proper social democracy can stop the demage that comes with global Capitalism. But what it takes is continual push from the left to attack the effects of Captitalism, you have to continually fight capitalism and push further toward socialism.

As soon as you stop and say "well we have a good social-democracy now" Capitalism is gonna find a way to try and undermine it.

[Dimentio]

True-Finns are quite center when it comes to the economic policies. They say that they are not leftists nor right. Sounds familiar?

Oh yes.

As for RGack's conclusions. They are only valid if the country pursuing social democratic policies is a large country, like the European Union for example.

[RGacky3]

They are only valid if the country pursuing social democratic policies is a large country, like the European Union for example.

or one with strong enough public industries to hold the economy.

[Chris]

The left in norway has traditionally (well, up till the student movement of the 60s) been tied to the LO (public & blue-collar worker confederation of trade unions, with 860 000 members which is 18% of the population). Both the Worker's Party (social-democrats), the Worker's Socialdemocratic Party (no longer exists) and the Communist Party of Norway were in some way created by the LO.

The SV (Socialist Left Party) is no longer socialist. The government 2005-2009 had the party leader as Minister of Finance, yet the privatisation drive was not halted in the slightest. The only radical in power within the SV (Audun Lysbakken) holds no real power, and is more of a front to guarantee support from more radical segments of the population and the youth organisation (which is more revolutionary, at least in rhetoric).

The only radical socialist/communist party with a high likelyhood of getting into parliament is Red, but they seem more concerned with feminism and homosexual rights than socialism lately.
The Communist Party of Norway is about the only Marxist-Leninist party, but we have very little influence outside the LO, No-To-EU movement, Palestina solidarity movement and Finnmark (north-eastern fylke/state).
The LO is pretty much the biggest ally of the Communist Party, more-so than other left-wing parties who would rather see us going away. Honestly, the future of the left in Norway is dependant on the Trade Unions (who are, as a whole, to the left of the Worker's Party and even the Socialist Left Party in most economical cases).

[Dimentio]

or one with strong enough public industries to hold the economy.

The issue there is that Sweden is to small to have it's own sphere of influence. All countries independent from international capital (Cuba, North Korea) are essentially living from hand to mouth and often not even that.

Sweden is too dependent on international trade to be able to pursue independent policies, at least not without eventually ending up as Cuba.

[RGacky3]

I personally am against of ANY marxist-leninist organizations, but unfortunately it seams in europe they are the only ones actually making a forceful left push.

As far as the Unions, I know they have power in Sweeden, in Norway they are still powerful, but what are they doing? Are they making serious pushes? I'd love to know (FYI, I'm a member of an LO affiliated union).

[Dimentio]

They don't have power in Sweden, though they are more influential than in the US.

[Gustav HK]

At the moment, the working class is on the defensive, losing social privileges that they have fought tooth and nail for. As a result, so are socialist groups wise to be on the defensive, even if that means making unfortunate alliances - Kommunistisk Parti in Denmark is currently following a similar line, advocating a regime shift towards a social democratic government before entering the offensive. Our current strategy consists of making demands that we can just barely realistically expect the social democrats to follow, and then going on the offensive when they inevitably break some of their promises. When we have more members and are more well-known, we will start pushing for socialism.

Is it therefore your party didn´t agitate for a no to the collective bargaining agreement in 2011 for public employees?

I believe that the fight for socialism shouldn´t be "postponed", but should be on the agenda now. Communists should not support any of the bourgeois blocs in Denmark.

P.S. The name "Kommunistisk Parti in Denmark" may create some confusion, as there is a party called "Kommunistisk Parti i Danmark" (Communist Party in Denmark), a brezhnevite party created by hardliners from the Communist Party of Denmark.
There is also another party (which is meant here), called "Kommunistisk Parti" (Communist Party) created from the ex-hoxhaist Communist Party of Denmark/Marxists-Leninists and a group, who had split from the KPiD, with the purpose of creating KP.

P.P.S. May I forward your post to the APK?

[RGacky3]

They don't have power in Sweden, though they are more influential than in the US.


YOu'd think they would given the huge number of people organized.

[Dimentio]

In the 1970's, they had considerable political power. Nowadays, they are fighting a defensive war.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

When it comes to the unions in Sweden and then im talking about the LO, its simply good looking numbers. They are one part thats holding class struggle back, they got a hughe hiarchy where the beurocrats at the top have been making theire own career on the cost of the workers. To think that you might use the LO to do something is just BS belive me, they are strongly connected with the SocDem's almoust like if they where conjoined twins and they do not allow any radicalness.

EDIT: Also in Sweden the different left-groups tend to think that its more important to fight eachother all the time, kind of familiar.

[RGacky3]

Sweeden and Norway are 2 very different countries, the LO in Norway may be very different from the Unions in sweden.

The Unions are and always will be the main thrust of class struggle, now maybe you need to reform the Unions, or restructure and democratise them, but I don't see any tool that is more useful than unions.

I don't know much about the Union movement in Sweden and would love to hear more about the situtation.

[Dimentio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LO_-_Swedish_Trade_Union_Confederation

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Youre right that im just talking about the Situation in Sweden, unfortunatley im not too familiar with the situation in our neighbouring countries. Its true that the LO in Norway is very different frome the swedish one, is it true that there they are calling themselves, proudly, for anti-fascists? Anyway the idea of work within the LO (swe) and radicalize/make it more democratic will be worthless and a waste of time and effort. Its sad to hear but its the truth, the hiarchy is to strong and powerful and its also built on the princip of agreement with the bosses and it has a long tradition of beating down any opposition or challanger. Last year 81% of the members in LO would go out in a strike to fight against the strongly established system of labour hiring, which has really started to mess up the few market securitys that workers have. Even soo it wont happen, the LO tend to write a contract with the bosses on evry workplace that are 'unionized' where they decide minimum wages, benefits and so on (ofcourse all this is done above the workers head). One of the princips in this contract is that that the boss will be guaranteed to kepp the power over the work place and that as long as this contract reaches no strike or blockade is allowed.

The only hope for unions i see, is in the syndicalist SAC and some smaller onces thats made out of some certain profession like the Harboe workers union. And thats probebly the only way, to simply start frome the bottom again and form new once. I know it sounds hard and negative but beliving that the LO will change is like hoping for the dinosaures to return. It wont happen.

[RGacky3]

So then what can the left in Sweden do to stop what I see as the trashing of the Swedish economy (Sweden right now is going the wrong direction and is doing down the tube, unlike Norway and Denmark which are still doing ok).

[Tavarisch_Mike]

One thing that might not be popular is to, once again, rise the taxes and frome there put more resources into the welfare system. Thts thinking long term and it will make some new (and necessary) stabile jobs. Buts theres a lot of things that needs to be done.

[Dimentio]

One thing that might not be popular is to, once again, rise the taxes and frome there put more resources into the welfare system. Thts thinking long term and it will make some new (and necessary) stabile jobs. Buts theres a lot of things that needs to be done.

Depends on how you raise taxes.

Like, if you increase the taxes to 91% for billionaires, you could probably lower it or keep it the same for everyone else. The problem is that they cut and run to Switzerland then.

[RGacky3]

Ultimately, I think sweeden needs to have a more nationalized econocmy, or stronger revenue producing industries that are publically controlled. I also think a revamped labor movement would be in Order.

How that law where they force unemployed people into internships passed through the labor union gauntlet is beyond me, how the hell could the unions let that pass.

[Per Albin Hansson]

Ultimately, I think sweeden needs to have a more nationalized econocmy, or stronger revenue producing industries that are publically controlled. I also think a revamped labor movement would be in Order.

Sweden has few actual natural resources of any greater value that are being extracted on a larger scale. However, if enough of our resources would be extracted and exported, that's everything Sweden would need in order to maintain a welfare system that can be compared to the welfare that we Swedes experienced during the 50:s, with a continued fairly high education rate, of course.


How that law where they force unemployed people into internships passed through the labor union gauntlet is beyond me, how the hell could the unions let that pass.

Since the Right-winged parties won the election in 2006 the unions have gotten less and less power, which actually have befitted the Swedish economics as all rules the unions had set up were made for larger companies, while the largest employment group in Sweden is actually micro-companies.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Depends on how you raise taxes.

Like, if you increase the taxes to 91% for billionaires, you could probably lower it or keep it the same for everyone else. The problem is that they cut and run to Switzerland then.

That's when you confiscate their money as they try to transfer. :lol:

[Dimmu]

Since the Right-winged parties won the election in 2006 the unions have gotten less and less power, which actually have befitted the Swedish economics as all rules the unions had set up were made for larger companies, while the largest employment group in Sweden is actually micro-companies.


Not true.. Swedish economy has improved on papper, but cuts are still being made in atleast healthcare(a field i know best).

At the same time Swedes are still loaning money like never before.

[RGacky3]

Sweden has few actual natural resources of any greater value that are being extracted on a larger scale. However, if enough of our resources would be extracted and exported, that's everything Sweden would need in order to maintain a welfare system that can be compared to the welfare that we Swedes experienced during the 50:s, with a continued fairly high education rate, of course.


If I'm not mistaken most of Swedens economy is the service sector, which is still productive economy, service economy, especially international (engineering and so on), is still something that can fund the swedish economy.

[Wubbaz]

The Danish left is largely non-existant. We have 3 main parties, the Social Democrats, People's Socialist Party and a joint-effort party between far-left parties such as the Danish Communist Party and International Socialists. This joint-effort party is the only real socialist party in Denmark. The two former ones are basicly reformist parties, or capitalist parties in disguise.

Our unions are also losing power. CSC, the global computer company, has recently imported cheap labour from India in order to bypass a strike by a Danish union. The Social Democrats and the People's Socialist Party has also recently joined the neo-liberal European pact of furthering the competitiveness of the European economies, by cutting in public spending and also lowering wages. This proves that they are not socialist parties.

Luckliy, the last real Socialist party which I mentioned above, will be getting more seats in congress next election. Also, even though they are reformist, our so-called socialist parties are also much more likely to win the next election than the right-wing. Even though they are reformist, I would still prefer them over any right-wing government any time.

I am sorry to hear about how things are going in Sweden. We must fight the islamophobic Sverigedemokraterna and our own version as much as we can.

[Per Albin Hansson]

Not true.. Swedish economy has improved on papper, but cuts are still being made in atleast healthcare(a field i know best).

At the same time Swedes are still loaning money like never before.

The Right-Winged parties got power right before an economic crash, and with a huge debt after the Social-Democratic rule.

I believe that can explain a thing or two.

I defend nobody in the corrupted seven-leaf clover(the established Swedish parties), but it sure is worth to think about.